[saurik]

I'm not sure what you are arguing :(... is your premise that it is sufficient for only "accredited" (is that even a thing? I didn't know that was a thing) security research firms that are, I guess, hired by the company that is selling the product for the world to be safe? As that definitely doesn't seem to be true in practice, and puts a LOT of power in some extremely biased hands :(. It also doesn't, from my understanding, match the intention of the laws either... the weakest part of the Green case (which is what was referenced and which is almost annoyingly-narrowly about security research being published in book form, and so sidesteps any confusion we might be having here with respect to my personal agendas that involve "jailbreaking")--as far as I can tell, as a non-lawyer who spends way too much time talking to the lawyers--is that the DOJ actually came out during the hearing to say they don't see anything wrong with the activity in the first place ;P. I'm thereby really confused that you seem to think this is somehow, I guess, illegal currently? Cause like, AFAIK, it isn't: the issue at hand is whether there is a chilling effect being caused by Section 1201's anti-trafficking provisions on someone's first amendment right to explain not only that something is insecure but in exactly what way it is insecure (as I, for example, often do in my post-mortems: see my articles on Optimism or Master Key, etc.) when those exploits happen to affect an "effective" (lol: I hate that wording) technological measure protecting someone's copyright, as, in the US, we tend to be pretty adamant about reserving the right to publish information.